|
Post by missingleg on Jun 30, 2008 10:57:33 GMT
Hello all,
I had a situation on the weekend where a batsman was so annoyed with an lbw decision of mine that he came to see me afterwards.
He played a front-foot defence to a spinner and was a long way down the track. The ball hit him, almost on the full, just above his foot.
He was adamant that nobody can give that out because the ball had too far to travel for the umpire to be 'certain it would have hit'. I got the impression afterwards that I was the only umpire in the league who gave front-front lbws.
Obviously, nobody on here can tell me if it was the right decision or not, but I have a more troubling question:
When I started umpiring, I was always told 'you have to be 100% sure to give a decision', whereas the laws simply read 'in the umpire's opinion' - there's nothing about doubt there. Therefore in recent times I've been giving more lbws. I've never had any trouble from bowlers for turning down appeals but the batsman think that if they plonk their front foot out there is too much doubt and no decision can be made.
I just say 'it's an opinion', but it seems to me the common practice is this 'doubt' mentality instead - I think there is an inconsistancy in umpires' mentalities here.
So, may I ask what you base your decisions on - your opinions or whether or not there's doubt?
|
|
|
Post by TrueDub on Jun 30, 2008 12:58:22 GMT
Doubt does come into it - if I'm not 100% convinced it's out, I don't give it. There's always a reason for doubt. As regards front-foot LBWs, you're especially concerned about travelling distance (being sure of the line off the pitch after bouncing) and height (might the ball bounce over the stumps?). An eminent umpire & scientist wrote a paper for our umpires newsletter regarding LBWs and the relevant geometry. His essential point is that there's a lot of room for movement on front foot LBWs, and therefore a lot of room for doubt. Should you be interested (and it's worth a read), you can find it in the April 2005 edition of our newsletter - the archive is at www.leinstercricketumpiresscorers.net/newsletters.htm. The article in question is "A game plan for LBWs" - there are some local references but I'm sure you'll get the picture. Please note & respect the copyright on the header of the newsletter!
|
|
|
Post by blackbeard on Jun 30, 2008 13:56:38 GMT
I agree with what the article states, this is what has been taught by ACUS instructors throughout the land. But if the ball does not deviate and the batsman get a long stride in, and if you are 100% sure it would go on and hit the wicket, then the striker should be given out LBW. A long stride should not automatically negate an appeal.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 30, 2008 14:16:41 GMT
Doubt does come into it - if I'm not 100% convinced it's out, I don't give it. There's always a reason for doubt. So, therefore you never give anything out? Sorry, I don't quite follow... Thanks for the article - it makes for interesting reading.
|
|
|
Post by TrueDub on Jun 30, 2008 14:57:19 GMT
Apologies, my comment was poorly stated.
I'm saying that if you have any doubts, it's not out - you should be 100% sure the ball would have hit the wicket, and that all other conditions for LBW have been met.
This means you'll turn a lot of reasonable appeals, but you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you're making the right decision.
Blackbeard's comment above is also correct - a big stride alone is not a reason to turn down an appeal. If you're sure it's going on to hit the wicket, then he's out. The concept of travelling distance becomes vital here though, in that you need to be sure the ball hasn't deviated significantly, and therefore you need to see it travel a reasonable distance to be sure.
I'm struggling slightly with my LBWs at the moment, as I find myself turning down appeals constantly, and I was worried about becoming a "not-out-er". Talking to colleagues has helped me with this - the lesson for me was that it's better to have strict requirements for LBWs, as then you'll get them right more often.
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Jun 30, 2008 15:43:53 GMT
The question I would ask of you is, do you look for reasons to give the batsman out, or do you look for a reason to say not out? My personal stance would be the latter. There only has to be one thing not right, and the batsman stays. for everything to be right should be the only reason an umpire should raise his finger and dismiss the batsman from the field. If there is any doubt whatsoever, no matter how small, then the batsman should get the benefit. If you think of travelling distances, I would refer you to the MCC Open Learning Manual, which you can download from their site, and take a long hard look at the examples given about line and movement in Law 36. Hope to meet up again soon, John.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 30, 2008 16:13:40 GMT
'If there is any doubt whatsoever, no matter how small, then the batsman should get the benefit.'
Okay thanks John, Blackbeard and TrueDub. I know it's a very basic question - it's just that I can't find in the MCC Laws anywhere where it deals with 'doubt' except for issues of a catch carrying or not. All I can find is 'in the opinion of the umpire' which led me to believe that a 51% certainty of the batsman being out would be good enough. Nowhere does it read 'favour the batsman' or the like. However, it is clear that this is the philosophy shared amongst umpires so I don't want to be inconsistant.
|
|
|
Post by blackbeard on Jun 30, 2008 16:36:29 GMT
I would refer you to the MCC Open Learning Manual Tom Smiths lays Law 36 more clearly?
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Jun 30, 2008 20:37:30 GMT
I do not normally respond to discussion topics with an advert but I feel I should mention the excellent treatise "Another Look at LBW Law" by Len Martin (an ACU&S Life Vice President) in 1970s.
Although the Law has changed slightly, his 60 page booklet including mathematics, geometric diagrams and reports on some experiments is very challenging.
Only £4.00 inc UK p&p cheque/cash/stamps with order to 167 Nantwich Road, Audley, ST7 8DL.
SPECIAL OFFERTwo copies for a fiver! Share the explanation with a friend.
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on Jun 30, 2008 22:42:09 GMT
Yes, must say Len Martin's booklet is very interesting.
There was an earlier version though wasn't there, what is the difference between it and the later one?
|
|
|
Post by TrueDub on Jul 1, 2008 10:06:10 GMT
The question I would ask of you is, do you look for reasons to give the batsman out, or do you look for a reason to say not out? This is one of the classic umpiring "style" questions. We discussed this at our training course more than once, and indeed I've seen discussions between international umpires where they differ. Basically there are 2 schools of thought - I call them the "tick-box" approach, and the "reasons not to" approach. I think both are equally valid and I wouldn't dream of putting one ahead of the other, although I personally use one of them almost exclusively. The "tick-box" approach has the umpire work methodically through the requirements for an LBW when an appeal is made. * Where did it pitch? * Where was the point of interception? * If relevant, was he playing a shot? * Can I be sure of the line? * Finally, after all other questions are answered, was it going to hit the stumps? This method is very useful as it relies on a sequence of decisions, building on each other and finally allowing the umpire to reach a conclusion based on valid information. The "reasons not to" approach basically reverses the questioning sequence. You decide whether the ball was going to hit the stumps, and if you decide it was, you then work through the decisions to find a reason not to give him out. If you can't, up goes the finger. Both methods rely on keen observation, careful storing of information and cooperation with your colleague. For instance, you need to think of the following (amongst other things): * Bounce of the pitch in general * where he's standing in relation to the batting crease (colleague can assist here by indicating from Strikers End before the ball is bowled) * How high it hit him * Line of the ball LBWs are tough things to get right, and you'll rarely find a batsman who agrees with you when you lift the finger, or a bowler who agrees when you turn it down. But remember this: you're the only one who knows. The bowler is moving quite fast, the batsman is moving to play a stroke, the wicketkeeper is unsighted at the crucial moment, and that idiot who keeps appealing from deep square leg is just acting the maggot. I've often had an agrieved glance from the batsman, indicating he was very far forward/outside the line/struck very high, when in fact he'd moved after the ball struck him. I had a bowler give me the full double-teapot, deep sigh, wounded-cow treatment when I turned one down, only to admit to me later he was only appealing because no shot had been played, and he didn't realise the ball was going to miss the stumps. In short: the players don't know much about it, the umps are the ones in the right place at the right time.
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Jul 2, 2008 20:09:53 GMT
I use the "tick box" approach as mentioned above and I am frequently slightly concerned that I do give an awful lot of "not outs" compared to "outs". However, having analysed my decisions on frequent occasions then I have always been convinced that I've made the correct decision in the vast majority of cases. I give a lot fewer "out" decisions nowadays compared to when I started umpiring.
My ratio must be reasonable on the basis that I (and my colleague of course) are frequently approached by the skippers at the end of a game with very positive comments about our consistency and good decision making.
The maxim that "the batsman only has one chance to be out whereas the bowler has many chances to get the batsman out" is worth bearing in mind, if there's any doubt then the benefit of that doubt must, IMHO be given to the batsman.
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Jul 2, 2008 20:17:50 GMT
In terms of how the umpires should apply the LBW law it's worth looking at the laws:
Firstly Law 3 (The Umpires)
6. Conduct of the game, implements and equipment
Before the toss and during the match, the umpires shall satisfy themselves that (a) the conduct of the game is strictly in accordance with the Laws.
and then an extract from Law 36 (LBW):
and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.
Taking the two combined I would interpret "would have hit the wicket" to need to be a strict certainty in the umpires mind with no room for doubt, not just an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Jul 3, 2008 6:20:16 GMT
In terms of how the umpires should apply the LBW law it's worth looking at the laws: and then an extract from Law 36 (LBW): and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket. Taking the two combined I would interpret "would have hit the wicket" to need to be a strict certainty in the umpires mind with no room for doubt, not just an opinion. I suspect that we all started off giving more LBW decisions than we do now. The above quotation is very important. What really changed my out / not out "ratio" was taking part in a competition which on the result of a tie had a single wicket "bowl out". Here the bowlers had so many deliveries to bowl at the stumps and the most wickets broken won ( a bit like a penelty shoot out). Simple you may think. However it was at least 25 deliveies before the wicket was broken. I thought to myself how many of those would I have given out. Food for thought - One of the benefits of doing nets I think.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jul 3, 2008 10:56:46 GMT
Food for thought indeed. Well, I'll be assessed this weekend so it'll be best not to cause controversy and make what commentators describe as 'brave decisions'!
|
|